Why Elder Rule (Part 2 of 2)
October 7th, 2008
(Continued from Yesterday’s Post)
The Qualifications of Elders
The character and effectiveness of any church is directly related to the quality of its leadership. That’s why Scripture stresses the importance of qualified church leadership and delineates specific standards for evaluating those who would serve in that sacred position.
The qualifications for elders are found in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-8. According to these passages, an elder must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money, not fond of sordid gain, a good manager of his household, one who has his children under control with dignity, not a new convert, one who has a good reputation outside the church, self-controlled, sensible, able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict, above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, loving what is good, just, and devout.
The single, overarching qualification of which the rest are supportive is that he is to be “above reproach.” That is, he must be a leader who cannot be accused of anything sinful because he has a sustained reputation for blamelessness. An elder is to be above reproach in his marital life, his social life, his business life, and his spiritual life. In this way, he is to be a model of godliness so he can legitimately call the congregation to follow his example (Phil. 3:17). All the other qualifications, except perhaps teaching and management skills, only amplify that idea.
In addition, the office of elder is limited to men. First Timothy 2:11-12 says, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” In the church, women are to be under the authority of the elders, excluded from teaching men or holding positions of authority over them.
The Functions of Elders
As the apostolic era came to a close, the office of elder emerged as the highest level of local church leadership. Thus, it carried a great amount of responsibility. There was no higher court of appeal and no greater resource to understand the mind and heart of God (as revealed in the Scriptures) with regard to issues in the church.
The primary responsibility of an elder is to serve as a manager and caretaker of the church (1 Tim. 3:5). That involves a number of specific duties. As spiritual overseers of the flock, elders are to determine church policy (Acts 15:22); oversee the church (Acts 20:28); ordain others (1 Tim. 4:4); rule, teach, and preach (1 Tim. 5:17; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:2); exhort and refute (Titus 1:9); and act as shepherds, setting an example for all (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Those responsibilities put elders at the core of the New Testament church’s work.
Because of its heritage of democratic values and its long history of congregational church government, modern American evangelicalism often views the concept of elder rule with suspicion. The clear teaching of Scripture, however, demonstrates that the biblical norm for church leadership is a plurality of God-ordained elders, and only by following this biblical pattern will the church maximize its fruitfulness to the glory of God.
In addition, the office of elder is limited to men.
Unfortunately, there are a LOT of churches and denominations that don’t obey this biblical commandment.
If one subscribes to a doctrinal taxonomy, then I have never seen anyone ascribe egalitarianism (or evangelical feminism) as being a first-order doctrinal error.
I’ve seen egalitarianism regarded as a 2nd-order doctrinal error. And I have seen egalitarians claim that complementarians (and the historical Church) are wrong for oppressing women with their incorrect exegesis. And I have seen them claim that their doctrinal practice is adiaphora or a matter of indifference. After all, it’s non-salvific. (They claim that their denial of the claim that the office of elder is limited to men is not salvific.)
What say thee?
“… he must be a leader who cannot be accused of anything sinful because he has a sustained reputation for blamelessness.”
~ I’d have to take exception to this statement simply because even elders are men who, in a fallen and imperfect estate, can and will continue to sin in thought, word or deed in this life. Entry into the ministry (eldership) should not be viewed as a ticket to perfection. This is an unreasonable expectation for anyone.
It is an unobtainable standard, save for Jesus Christ, to say that elders must not be accused of “anything sinful” whatsoever. Only Christ is free from the Accuser. Therefore, I believe, as we take the whole of Scripture in account, we must limit the requirement for “blamelessness” to a degree or type of sin which incurs unrepairable damage to the man and the name of Christ. Just as Peter was restored as an apostle after his sin, we too should realize the frailty and limitations of men we put in office.
One Pastor rule is not “unbiblical”, however, it is not the “pattern” of Scripture. However, we must be careful also and not to turn “patterns” into “principals”. Let’s face it, didn’t they celebrate the Lord’s Supper only at night from all the instances we read of?. If that is the case, Sunday morning Lord’s Suppers are “unbiblical”. And if we follow overly strict interpretations, then isn’t the title “Sr. Pastor” unbiblical?
God qualifies persons for leadership and when one desires to be an elder, they need to be examined, evaluated, and once proven, placed into that role – as a leader. Having grown up in the more exclusive branch of Plymouth Brethren, the argument that “only apostles and their delegates ever chose elders” and therefore, elders were never recognized (some would say they had them, but would never say who they were…definately confusing especially if you wanted to obey James and call for the elders of the church when you were sick…) God put the qualifications there in His Word and because Paul told Titus to “set in order what remained” by “choosing elders in every city”, this Apostolic mandate requires that the church have elders. If assistance is needed in choosing them, perhaps calling on another established church can be done since Paul told Timothy to commit to other faithful men what Paul had spoken of so that they could pass on to others and keep the Faith going. Since it is not abundantly clear from Scripture, in a direct command, on HOW elders are to be chosen, but that they should be chosen and since we are given their qualifications, prayer and a confident, fearful trust that the Lord will guide should be exercised about how a church chooses them.
As for “blamelessness”… wow, that is tough. We all sin…and pepetually (that is why Christ is our [perpetual while we are still on earth] High Priest, no?, and why we must “confess our sins” (perpetual). However, if a candidate for an elder has a “habit” of being a pugilist (brawler) or getting drunk, that is a clear disqualification. As a computer manager, I deal constantly with people who believe using unlicensed software as being “ok” because “everybody does it” – as well as downloading unlicensed songs. I can tell you of so-called Christians who think it’s okay for them to not claim ALL their tips as income on their taxes…I would definately NOT consider them for leadership in the church. Are elders perfect, no, but do they have a habit of exercising godliness – YES…. And to such as the Holy Spirit has made overseers, I will submit to.
Solo Deo Gloria….